Does the Use of Intraoperative Microelectrode Recording Influence the Final Location of Lead Implants in the Ventral Intermediate Nucleus for Deep Brain Stimulation?

Electrophysiological approaches to informing therapeutic interventions with deep brain stimulation

Neuromodulation therapy comprises a range of non-destructive and adjustable methods for modulating neural activity using electrical stimulations, chemical agents, or mechanical interventions. Here, we discuss how electrophysiological brain recording and imaging at multiple scales, from cells to large-scale brain networks, contribute to defining the target location and stimulation parameters of neuromodulation, with an emphasis on deep brain stimulation (DBS).

Influence of Intraoperative Microelectrode Recording in Deep Brain Stimulation

BACKGROUND

There is considerable debate regarding the use of intraoperative microelectrode recording (MER) in deep brain stimulation (DBS).

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the use of intraoperative MER impacts the final position of the lead implant in DBS of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and globus pallidus (GPi) and to evaluate the incidence of complications.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent STN and GPi DBS with MER, at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston from June 1, 2009 to October 1, 2013 to compare initial and final coordinates. Hemorrhagic and infectious complications were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 90 lead implants on 46 patients implanted at the center during this time period were reviewed and included in the study. A statistically significant difference between the initial and final coordinates was observed in the superior-inferior direction with a mean difference of 0.40 mm inferiorly (±0.96 mm, P<0.05) and 0.96 mm inferiorly (±1.32 mm, P<0.05) in the STN and GPi locations, respectively. A nonstatistically significant difference was also observed in the anterior-posterior direction in both locations. There were no intraparenchymal hemorrhages on postoperative computed tomography. Two patients developed postoperative seizures (7.4%). One STN electrode (1.1%) required revision because of a suboptimal response.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative MER in STN and GPi DBS implant does not seem to have a higher rate of surgical complications compared with historical series not using MER and might also be useful in determining the final lead location.

Awake Testing during Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery Predicts Postoperative Stimulation Side Effect Thresholds

Despite substantial experience with deep brain stimulation for movement disorders and recent interest in electrode targeting under general anesthesia, little is known about whether awake macrostimulation during electrode targeting predicts postoperative side effects from stimulation. We hypothesized that intraoperative awake macrostimulation with the newly implanted DBS lead predicts dose-limiting side effects during device activation in clinic. We reviewed 384 electrode implants for movement disorders, characterized the presence or absence of stimulus amplitude thresholds for dose-limiting DBS side effects during surgery, and measured their predictive value for side effects during device activation in clinic with odds ratios ±95% confidence intervals. We also estimated associations between voltage thresholds for side effects within participants. Intraoperative clinical response to macrostimulation led to adjustments in DBS electrode position during surgery in 37.5% of cases (31.0% adjustment of lead depth, 18.2% new trajectory, or 11.7% both). Within and across targets and disease states, dose-limiting stimulation side effects from the final electrode position in surgery predict postoperative side effects, and side effect thresholds in clinic occur at lower stimulus amplitudes versus those encountered in surgery. In conclusion, awake clinical testing during DBS targeting impacts surgical decision-making and predicts dose-limiting side effects during subsequent device activation.